Selmeczi László szerk.: Szolnok Megyei Múzeumi Évkönyv (1982-83)
Cs. Siklódi: An early Copper Age settlement at Tiszaföldvár
in the settlement excavated at Vrsac, dating back to the Final Neolithic Age (Vinca D) yielded 14 vessels. Miniature variants of four of these were found at the same site.17 The miniature copies of a household assemblage cannot be regarded as mere chance; they were perhaps associeted with certain beliefs or were possibly symbolic offerings. The miniature vessels from Tiszaföldvár perhaps served a similar purpose, which would explain their careful finish. The model of a sanctury complete with inner furnishing was found in a house excavated at Ovcarovo 38 . No such conclusions can be drawn in this case. To recapitulate briefly: the characteristic features of the pottery described above (surviving Neolithic traditions, local variants of Early Tiszapolgár forms, the percentage of knobs, black-painted decoration), now indicate clearly that the Kisrétpart group had already made its appearance at the beginning of the Tiszapolgár culture, and not during the second phase 39 as believed earlier by Ida B. Kutzián. Her opinion was based on the fact that Kisrétpart imports occured only during the second phase in other local groups of the culture. 40 Numerous Neolithic elements in the form and ornamentation of the pottery uncovered during more recent excavations, however, point to the fact that there must have been direct ties with the preceding cultures. The survival of these traditions cannot be attributed to possible transmissions via the Deszk or Basatanya groups. The possibility of the survival of a Neolithic group in the Tiszazug until the second phase of the Tiszapolgár culture can also be ruled out. The relative seclusion of the Tiszazug (i.e. that it was bordered by large rivers and extensive marshland) did not isolate or retard the development of this area. This area was also affected by the changes occuring in the Carpathian Basin and the main trends of its development ran parallel to those of the Great Hungarian Plain. The excavations at Tiszaföldvár not only yielded evidence for the modification of the chronology of the Kisrétpart group, but also contributed towards a more precise understanding of the economy and settlements of this culture. Even though only a very small part of the settlement was excavated, it has nevertheless been demonstrated by previous research that the houses and the structure of a settlement can shed considerable light on economic and social conditions. 41 Although the house excavated at Tiszaföldvár was not renewed after it had burned down, its structure indicates that is was not a seasonal shelter. The Tisza polgár layers of the settlement at Bélmegyer and the tell settlement at Vésztő-Mágor yielded houses with a stamped earthen floor but without any trace of post holes, and mostly covered by a thick debris of burnt wattle-and-daub. 42 No ovens or hearths were observed within these houses. It would appear that the framework of wooden beams around which the house was erected was fitted into logs placed on the ground. Traces of a bedding trench were observed at Crna Вага in Yugoslavia. 43 The reconstruction of the house is also facilitated by a house model from Aszód, belonging to the Lengyel culture. The small hut has an almost flat pent-roof which was highest above the entrance. Four tiny bosses at the back of the model indicate the horizontal logs and the vertical beams supporting the roof. 44 Similar huts were still in use only a few decades ago. 45 This type of building technique presents serious obstacles in the excavation of the sites of this culture. Traces of post holes would indicate the presence of the house even after its destruction (e.g. Kenderes-Kulis and Kenderes-Telekhalom), 46 but this building technique, however, appears to have been fairly rare. In the case of settlements consisting of a single habitation level, abricultural work (deep ploughing) can practically destroy all traces so that subsequent excavations yield only minimal settlement features (pits, patches of burnt wattle-and-daub), or, even worse only pottery which cannot be associated with settlement features at all, as for instance at Apagy-Nagysziget, DévaványaAtyaszeg, Csökmő, Hajdúszoboszló, Zenta-Bátka, TiszapolgárTéglaszín. 47 This also explains why the numerous finds made at Endrőd could not be associated with distinct settlement features. 4 » The stucture of the settlement can also impede its excavation since in contrast to tells (e.g. Vésztő-Mágor, Crna Вага) where houses were arrenged in close proximity to each other, the houses of settlements lying in lowlands were constructed at a considerable distance from each other. At Szerbkeresztur (Srpski Krestur) patches of debris 3.4 x 4.5 m indicating houses were observed at intervals of 10-15 or sometimes even 30 m. 49 At Sirig-Kamedin in the Bácska (Yugoslavia) 10-15 houses were aligned in two rows. 50 A similar lay-out is suggested at Bélmegyer and Tiszaföldvár. This type of settlement originated from a subsistence economy. The Final Neolithic Age saw the peak of the "domestication fever" which resulted in the complete extermination of aurochs in the Carpathian Basin. 51 In the course of hunting, attention was subsequently focused on rounding up young animals, and thus herds were increased considerably by the Aeneolithic Age, as a consequence of which stock-breeding and pastoralism grew in importance. This, however, does not necessarily imply a nomadic way of life, but that settlements were predominantly located in areas which were suitable for all year round grazing. The loose agglomeration of houses suggests that herds were kept within the settlement at certain times. The growing importance of stockbreeding did not mean the decline of agriculture. Cattle were used as draught animals in Romania 52 and Bulgaria 53 in areas bordering the Lower Danube during the Late Neolithic Age, which meant the appearance and diffusion of animal-drawn ploughs. H. Todorova believes a similar plough was found at Ovcarovo. 54 There is no such direct material evidence of agricultural implements from the Carpathian Basin, but there is indirect proof that animal-drawn ploughs were already used by the population of the Tisza culture. 55 It has been suggested that some sort of plough had been introduced at the beginning of the Neolithic Age. 56 Even if the exact data of the first appearance of ploughs is debatable, there is a general consensus that the flourishing copper metallurgy of the Aeneolithic initiated the establishment of extensive trade relations which, in turn, promoted the spread of various innovations. 57 It would thus appear that more intensive and productive agricultural techniques were also applied in the Carpathian Basin by the time of the Tiszapolgár culture. The importance of agriculture is also underlined by those trying to find an explanation for the disappearance of the tell settlements of the Tisza culture. 58 There are two main points: a) The improvements and innovations in agricultural production eventually led to a demographic rise which, in turn, involved the increase of arable land. This gradually led to the collapse of centralism. The researchers demostrated that there was a 15-20% decrease in productivity in proportion to the distance from the settlements. 59 In order to increase productivity small farmsteads were founded within a radius of 3-5 kms from the settlement ; these became s small agricultural centres. 60 These farmsteads were succeded by self-sufficient nuclear family units by the time of the Tiszapolgár culture, which formed loose agglomerations within the settlements. The 450-500 1 of grain which could be stored in the Tiszaföldvár house can perhaps be interpreted as the annual supply of family. Estimates based on the capacity of the storage bins of levels HI and IV of Goljamo Delcevo gave a figure of 210 kg of cereals per capita per year. 6 i Masson arrived at a similar estimate (200 kg) in his analysis of the Neolithic settlement at Jeitun. 62 30
